(28-11-2012 06:35 AM)chandrashakti Wrote: I am trying to figure out how to explain my conception of the divine... let me try it this way... Have you seen Carl Sagan's explaination of the fourth dimension by talking about two dimensional beings that are visited by a three dimensional being? Recall that the three dimensional being was easily able to enter the closed locked two dimensional room. The other 2D beings said "Where is your proof. I don't see any evidence of this thing you are telling me about." My conception of the divine encompasses the entire multiverse plus. Science now recognizes that there are many dimensions. I propose that those theoretical unicorns discussed earlier in the thread are Nth dimensional beings. Therefore they would leave no evidence of their existence in the 3D world. So no my gods are not creators or redeemers. They are my attempts to make something vast and incomprehensive approachable. They're are a lot like a planetarium... it to a limited degree participates in the universe, but more importantly it helps to make the cosmos approachable and comprehensible. Heck in some ways my personal gods might even be like those glow-in-the-dark stars you can put in kids rooms. In some small way they contain the stuff of what they represent but in a much more approachable, domesticated way. If the divine as a whole is a creator, it creates the way we create turds. We are not aware of the making. We may be aware of the excretion, but so long as it doesnt sit around stinking we pay no attention to our creation afterward.

You can make ideas about how you feel or what you think and compare it to things all day long. At the end of the day there is a reality check: "How do you know?"

You can talk about how you accept scientific evidence. But I think the largest difference between us that you haven't mentioned is that we tend to care more about what's true, than what sounds good to us. I mean no insult by that, but at the end of the day if you cannot well explain how you know this and you cannot verify or justify it then are you justified in believing your "idea of things" or "how it's like a 4th dimension" or "how things can't leave their presence" - if something cannot leave a presence, how do you know it ever existed in the first place unless you're thinking it up or using wishful thinking?

Again, unexplained things remain unexplained. Why insert something unnecessary to explain them. This defeats scientific explanation in full. You can use the "I think there are things bigger than us" argument all day but again... "How do you know?"

I realize that the only information you will accept is verifiable, proveable, documentable information. I am not trying to convince you of my stance. I am trying to understand yours and explain mine. Unfortunately not everything in my stance is proveable. Unlike you I do not need it to work for anyone but me. Unlike most human beings I do not need outside validation. If you want to understand what I believe I will try to explain. If you want me to justify then sorry I will not. I cannot. And that fact does nothing to weaken my comfort with my beliefs. I have deliberately challenged my beliefs for the last three decades. I cannot prove a bit of it, but that does not bother me.
If you will explain to me the shape if your atheism, I am interested in learning. If you want to learn something about the shape of my belief I will try to explain. If you want me to convince you of the validity of my beliefs, TOUGH.

(28-11-2012 02:03 PM)chandrashakti Wrote: If you will explain to me the shape if your atheism, I am interested in learning. If you want to learn something about the shape of my belief I will try to explain. If you want me to convince you of the validity of my beliefs, TOUGH.

There isn't really anything to explain. For most atheists (including myself), the "shape of our atheism" is probably more or less the same as the "shape" of your lack of belief about leprechauns living at the summit of the Matterhorn. It's a peculiar notion, and one for which there is no evidence, so for the most part, you simply disregard it. The only reason we have to give it so much thought -- at least, for some of us -- is that we live in a society where most people do believe there are leprechauns living at the summit of the Matterhorn, who work hard to get legislation passed on the basis of that belief, and who strongly condemn those of us who lack the same belief. If religious people just kept their beliefs to themselves, most atheists wouldn't care all that much about religion.

(28-11-2012 02:03 PM)chandrashakti Wrote: I realize that the only information you will accept is verifiable, proveable, documentable information. I am not trying to convince you of my stance. I am trying to understand yours and explain mine. Unfortunately not everything in my stance is proveable. Unlike you I do not need it to work for anyone but me. Unlike most human beings I do not need outside validation. If you want to understand what I believe I will try to explain. If you want me to justify then sorry I will not. I cannot. And that fact does nothing to weaken my comfort with my beliefs.

I simply asked you to provide me with some evidence for the claim that science recognizes the existence of "many [sic]" dimensions. Unlike a belief in some higher power, the formerly mentioned assertion can be proven empirically. In fact, if what you are saying is true, you should be able to demonstrate it with ease.

(28-11-2012 02:03 PM)chandrashakti Wrote: I have deliberately challenged my beliefs for the last three decades. I cannot prove a bit of it, but that does not bother me.

(28-11-2012 02:03 PM)chandrashakti Wrote: If you will explain to me the shape if your atheism, I am interested in learning. If you want to learn something about the shape of my belief I will try to explain. If you want me to convince you of the validity of my beliefs, TOUGH.

I'd go with the commonly used definition of atheism: the absence/lack of a belief in gods. That's really all there is to. The reason for lacking a belief in gods may very well be different. For me, it's both because there is no evidence supporting the god(s) hypothesis and because there is no good reason to think that they exist in the first place.

vosur does this citation hold water? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higher_dimensions
The mathematics involves in quantum physics indicates that there are indeed more dimensions.
I might be able to elaborate on why having unsubstantiated beliefs doesn't bother me if you can elaborate on why dismissing any experience which cannot be proved does not bother you. Frankly the "it's all in your head" approach bothers me a great deal, but does not seem to bother you in the least. We stand at different places and I am not sure language is adequate to explain.

In physics, three dimensions of space and one of time is the accepted norm. There are theories that try to unify different forces and such—these theories require more dimensions. Superstring theory, M-theory and Bosonic string theory respectively posit that physical space has 10, 11 and 26 dimensions. These extra dimensions are said to be spatial. However, we perceive only three spatial dimensions and, to date, no experimental or observational evidence is available to confirm the existence of these extra dimensions. A possible explanation that has been suggested is that space acts as if it were "curled up" in the extra dimensions on a subatomic scale, possibly at the quark/string level of scale or below.

An analysis of results from the Large Hadron Collider in December 2010 severely constrains theories with large extra dimensions. [6]"

(28-11-2012 02:52 PM)chandrashakti Wrote: I might be able to elaborate on why having unsubstantiated beliefs doesn't bother me if you can elaborate on why dismissing any experience which cannot be proved does not bother you. Frankly the "it's all in your head" approach bothers me a great deal, but does not seem to bother you in the least. We stand at different places and I am not sure language is adequate to explain.

Care to clarify what you mean here? I don't recall dismissing every experience that cannot be proven. I also don't recall having an "it's all in your head" approach towards you.

As Vosur pointed out, additional dimensions are not currently considered fact. Theoretical physicists like them because they solve a lot of problems, in all sorts of contexts, but we don't yet have any proof whatsoever that they exist.

The majority of attempts at a "Grand Unified Theory", combining General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, invoke additional dimensions, but until experimental evidence demonstrates their existence those attempts remain hypotheses (though they often end up called theories, because they are mathematically self-consistent which is a major aspect of becoming a theory in physics).

Ok, I am noticing three distinct strains of atheism. The first is "Whatever, just keep your god out of our politics." This strain is one I greatly respect and can work side by side with.
The second is "Wow that's odd, let me poke and prod that and see if I can figure that out." This is the strain I have the most in common with. Thus my starting this thread in the first place.
The third seems to regard any unsubstantiated belief as a mental illness to be stamped out. I think of that strain as fundamentalist atheism, because they share a very obnoxious trait with fundamentalists of other stripes. ie: "you all do not see things the way I do, therefore what the **** is wrong with you people."
Then again I see two distinctly different Christian gods. The first I will refer to as Yahweh. He is the kind, loving, gentle father. He would never send anyone much short of Jeffrey Dahmer or Timothy MacVeigh to hell. This is the god I was raised with.
The other, Jehovah, is the target rich bastard many atheists are fond of skewering, and rightly so. This is the god which will send anyone who puts one toe out of line straight to hell.
Arguing against that god using logic will never work, as many people have already concluded. One needs to use their "literal" interpretation of their holy book against them. But remember the KISS principle. Just ask them WHICH creation they believe in. There are two distinct creations in Genesis, with different orders of creation. They cannot both be believed literally.